Question:
Answer:
We’re not away of any such assertion from St. Thomas Aquinas. Could you please provide a citation?
In any event, while St. Thomas had issues with the doctrine, it related to his understanding of the impact of original sin. His opposition stemmed from his understanding of the impact of original sin, and yet he believed that Mary was quickly sanctified and thus freed from the stain original sin, and didn’t commit any sin thereafter. As The Catholic Encyclopedia (published in the early 1900s) notes, St. Thomas’
great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e.g., “Summa Theol.”, III, Q. xxvii, a. 2, ad 2um). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises.
In that sense, a denial of Mary’s need for a Redeemer would be an offense against Jesus. However, properly understood, the dogma is not contrary to Christ’s dignity. Mary’s Immaculate Conception affirms the dignity of Jesus because it fittingly provides him a human tabernacle free of any sin. In addition, the dogma recognizes that Mary still needed a Redeemer, because Jesus had to preserve her from original sin. In addition, in being “full of grace,” Mary cooperated with Christ thereafter to remain free of any personal sin